Caricom or Cari-gone?

By Sir Ronald Sanders


The New Year started with a great deal of frustration being publicly expressed over the Caribbean regional integration project which, this year, will have been in construction for forty-three years. Other integration efforts, such as the European Union (EU), which began after the Caribbean Community and Common market (CARICOM), have moved ahead much faster and much more effectively for the benefit of the people of their member countries.

It is understandable, therefore, that, in an editorial, one of the Caribbean oldest newspapers observed that a majority of people believe that “any official attempt to unite the region as envisaged in the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is nothing but reverie and doomed to failure”. To be fair the editorial did not trumpet this observation with glee or satisfaction. It said that “as we enter the second decade of this century, we hold fast, nevertheless, to the idea of one region”.

So, on the one hand, this editorial, reflecting the views of many, still believes in the notion of a deeply integrated Caribbean – “one region”, but it expresses no faith that, after forty-three years, we will see a CSME anytime soon. The editorial identified four contemporary reasons for its lack of faith in any “official” attempt to unite the region.

These reasons were: an unfortunate statement last year by the Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister that her government would no longer be “an ATM” machine for other countries of CARICOM; an injudicious remark by the same Prime Minister that, in the provision by her government of assistance to the islands of St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines she would expect some benefit for the construction industry of Trinidad and Tobago; the more recent suggestion by Prime Minister Bruce Golding of Jamaica that his government favoured setting up its own national final Court of Appeal rather than acceding to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ); and that CARICOM heads of government are yet to establish “any executive machinery to enforce” their own policy decisions.

All of these points are valid. There are many more besides. Among them are that instead of getting on with fashioning CARICOM into an effective vehicle to help with the improvement of their people’s lives and progressing development in their countries, some governments are busily trying to cultivate relations with other larger countries far beyond the region to try to get what they can while they can. The latter strategy is, of course, unsustainable. And, as has happened in the past, the governments now flirting, on their own, with bigger countries not on their doorstep will return to the regional fold which is not only their natural home, but also their best hope.

Fortunately, the statements by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, while indicative of an attitude to CARICOM held by many in that country, were made in the early flush of government. In the past, other heads of government have made equally hurtful (and not fully informed) comments in other contexts. The truth is that Trinidad and Tobago is the principal beneficiary of trade in goods and services to CARICOM – benefits are not a one-way street. This is the message that the government in Port-of-Spain should be delivering to its people. Also, to those who say that Trinidad and Tobago does not need the CARICOM market, they should be challenged to identify the alternative markets, how quickly could they be developed if they could be developed at all, and at what cost.

With regard to the statement that Mr Golding has made about establishing Jamaica’s own national, final court of appeal instead of joining the CCJ for this purpose, it really is time that someone bells the cat on this as well. As I pointed out in my last commentary (“Time to make up your mind”), by April this year Jamaicans will head five extremely important CARICOM-wide institutions. These are positions for which the Jamaica government fought and other CARICOM countries agreed. What is the message that is being sent to the people of CARICOM by Jamaica? Is it that all is well when Jamaica holds the reins, but it isn’t well when other CARICOM nationals are involved? This cannot be so, and Mr Golding is far too intelligent a man and too well informed to hold such a position. The time has come for Jamaica’s leadership to cease pandering to the false notion of some special Jamaican capacity, and, instead, spread the true message that this region is one – and one to which Jamaica’s contribution has been highly regarded by its Caribbean brothers and sisters.

The quicker that the CARICOM Secretariat, as part of an overall reform of all its activities, is given the resources and empowered to mount a sustained, multi-media campaign throughout the region on how membership of the Caribbean Community has benefitted, and can continue to benefit, the people of each CARICOM country the better. And, every government should regard it as its responsibility and obligation to carry out its own domestic programme of education and information.

Of the four points made in the Editorial to which this commentary refers, the most crucial is its observation that “the decade closed without the establishment of any executive machinery to enforce the implementation of policy decisions by heads of government”. This is – and has been for decades – the fundamental problem with the lack of progress of CARICOM in establishing the CSME and even in carrying out a range of activities that are routine in organisations similar to CARICOM.

In his New Year’s address as Chairman of CARICOM until July 2011, the Prime Minister of Grenada, Tillman Thomas, said that “the cry for the ‘quickening of the pace’ was heard” and “active consideration of new governance structures” was given by CARICOM leaders. He offered that “one of the main ideas in taking the necessary steps will be tested in this coming year with the establishment of the Permanent Committee of CARICOM Ambassadors” which, he said, “heralds a new dawn for our Community”.

Mr Thomas is right to hold out hope, but it is difficult to see how another layer of national representatives will implement policy decisions of Heads, when ministers and the Secretariat were not able to do so.

The CARICOM vehicle needs an urgent overhaul, or it really will be a case of ‘CARICOM and gone’.

January 7, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Cool Heads and no Crowns: The Caribbean in a storm

By Sir Ronald Sanders


Not for the first time in the history of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), Heads of Government are conveying mixed signals to the people of the region about how they feel about the CARICOM relationship and, indeed, about themselves.

Two incidents brought this reality into sharp focus over the last few days. The first was an inflammatory statement attributed to Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, that she did not make, and the other was the almost complete turn out of CARICOM Heads of Government to the funeral of David Thompson, the late Prime Minister of Barbados, and the genuine sense of “family” that they showed.

The statement that Persad-Bissessar is alleged to have made is, “No free help” for the islands of St Vincent and St Lucia that have been severely battered by Hurricane Tomas with St Lucia getting the worst of it. Earlier, as a tropical storm, Tomas had also sallied through Barbados uprooting trees, dislodging utility poles and wires, and damaging hundreds of mostly low-cost houses throughout the island.

“No free help” were not Persad-Bissessar’s words. They were the headline in the Trinidad Express newspaper on November 1, which did report what the Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister actually said. According to the story and other newspaper reports, the Prime Minister was speaking at a press conference about a request that she had received from the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, for assistance after his country was ravaged by the brutal Tomas.

What all the Trinidad and Tobago media reported her to say, was: "We will have to look at ways in which we would be able to assist. But you would recall my comments earlier this year, when I said there must some way in which Trinidad and Tobago would also benefit. So if we are giving assistance with housing for example, and that is one of the areas that we (Prime Minister of St Vincent and myself ) spoke about, ... then we may be able to use Trinidad and Tobago builders and companies, so that whatever money or assistance is given, redounds back in some measure to the people of Trinidad and Tobago."

She did not say that the Trinidad and Tobago government would not help. Indeed, she is reported as actually saying that her government had already mobilised two containers of foodstuff, and a decision would be made about where to send them but "certainly to St Vincent".

The issue here is not that she refused to provide assistance. If she had done so, I would have joined the chorus of voices that are now condemning her. When she talked earlier this year of Trinidad and Tobago not being “an ATM machine” for the Caribbean, I was one of the first to criticise that statement drawing attention to the fact that Trinidad and Tobago enjoys almost a monopoly market in the Caribbean for its cheaper oil-subsidised goods because of the CARICOM Treaty and that the Petroleum Fund (badly managed though it is) is as much in Trinidad and Tobago’s interest as the rest of the CARICOM countries since it helps to keep those countries as markets for Trinidad and Tobago’s goods.

The real issue with those who now condemn her is the link she drew between her government’s assistance and the use of “builders and companies” from Trinidad and Tobago.

Heat over that issue should be tempered by two realities. First, other countries (not only the former imperialists) link their assistance to their own materials and people. As examples, Cuban projects in many CARICOM countries use Cuban material and Cuban labour, as do several Venezuelan-funded projects. And, China not only insists upon the use of its material and people in aid projects, it does so for commercial projects too. And, it has long been the condition of many donors – either directly or through the agencies they use to finance aid projects – that their money be used for materials and workers from their countries exclusively.

The second reality is that Kamla Persad-Bissessar is the leader of a political party and Prime Minister of a country that, like many others, has become sceptical of CARICOM. It is up to her and her Ministers to demonstrate to a large section of the Trinidad and Tobago population that there is benefit in CARICOM for them.

Of course, they need to demonstrate CARICOM’s benefit to them over a very wide range of issues which includes the fact that CARICOM is a very lucrative market for Trinidad and Tobago’s products and services keeping thousands of its people employed; the country needs the support of CARICOM in fighting drug trafficking and crime, and maintaining security; it needs CARICOM in international bargaining in trade against larger entities such as the European Union; and it would not fulfil its international aspirations in the international system without the full backing of CARICOM.

Trinidad and Tobago, too, must realise that it alone does not wear a crown and it is not an island (not even two) unto itself.

But Persad-Bissessar should not be lynched for what she did not say, or for linking her government’s assistance to use of her country’s material and work force. At no time did she say no help would be forthcoming.

The entire Caribbean is going through what Professor Norman Girvan recently described as “existential threats”. This is a time for cool heads. It is not a time for tit-for-tat statements or for statements whose content sound like “something will not be given for nothing”.

Much of this present controversy is unnecessary and would not happen if CARICOM governments talk to each other on a platform of interdependence and common problems, and with a resolve to solve them collectively, recognising that none of them can go it alone and the task at hand is urgent and huge.

It was significant that at the well-organised and dignified funeral of Barbados David Thompson in the same week of this incident, CARICOM leaders turned out in full force to honour their fallen brother, and CARICOM was given an important role in the proceedings through its Chairman, Jamaica’s Prime Minister Bruce Golding. It is on that sense of CARICOM “family” that the region needs to go forward in its own vital interest.

November 5, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Owen Arthur - the Caribbean Commissioner the region should have

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


Owen Arthur, the former Prime Minister of Barbados, is probably one of the best Commissioners of a Caribbean Commission that the region does not have but ought to have.

Indeed, had Caribbean Community and Common market (CARICOM) governments implemented the recommendation of the 1992 West Indian Commission to establish a Caribbean Commission, we may today have as its President, PJ Patterson the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, Owen Arthur as one of its Commissioners and someone from the OECS of the regional calibre of say, Ralph Gonsalves the present Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, or Vaughan Lewis former Prime Minister of St Lucia, as the third Commissioner.

Had such a Commission been in place and operating, CARICOM countries may have been dealing with their current financial and economic crises in a collective and cohesive fashion, and much better than they are currently.

As it is, each country has struggled to deal on an individual basis with the walloping effects not only of the global financial crisis, but also of the consequences of the collapse of CLICO and British American.

While it is true that in mid-June, the governments of the seven small members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) signed a Treaty to establish an Economic Union among themselves, that treaty is not yet operational and while, once it is operational, it will represent progress, it remains insufficient. It is the wider CARICOM region that has to deepen its integration arrangements and especially its machinery for joint decision-making and implementation.

Regrettably, Owen Arthur is not looking for a job as a Commissioner or even Head of a Caribbean Commission. Indeed, one interpretation of a comment he made recently in the Bahamas suggests that he may be interested in being Prime Minister of Barbados once again.

In a very important speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Caribbean at its annual meeting in the Bahamas on June 25, Arthur said: “You should allow me to begin by stating how very pleased I am to be able to share the same platform once again with Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham who until recently, like I do now, carried the title of Former Prime Minister. His presence fortifies my belief in the concept of the second coming”.

Whatever Arthur meant by that comment, the rest of his statement was a telling analysis of the present financial and economic condition of the Caribbean Community, and a blistering revelation of the lack of support from the International Financial Institutions (IFI’s).

It has to be said, however, that while the IFI’s have not been as responsive to the Caribbean as they could have been, and the IMF in particular has applied the usual prescriptions for providing Stand-By arrangements to Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, CARICOM countries failed to provide the IFI’s and major world economies with a clearly defined plan of what they need, for what, and how they plan to repay it.

It should be recalled that when the global financial crisis erupted, the world, and the Caribbean Region within it, faced an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Globalisation threatened to overwhelm the Caribbean with a world-wide recession, and indeed it did. Growth in every country except Guyana (according to the IMF) declined in 2008 and 2009. In some cases, there was negative growth. The ratio of debt to GDP escalated everywhere even in normally cautious Barbados. Tourism, on which the entire region (except Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago) now relies, declined everywhere if not in numbers, certainly in spending.

No State, no Government, no society within the region was immune from the economic consequences of the global financial crisis and the effects of the collapse of CLICO and British American. In that context, CARICOM societies expected their governments to come together to explore measures they could take in concert to enlarge the capacity of the region. Indeed, several regional commentators urged such action in very specific terms. As it turned out, CARICOM governments set up two separate task forces and both reported, but no joint plan was put to the IFI’s and none to the major world economies.

Owen Arthur reminded his audience in the Bahamas that “in April 2009, the G20 countries pledged provision of an additional $1.1 trillion to the IMF and the Multilateral Development Banks to enable them to carry out a programme to restore credit, growth and jobs to the world economy”, and he observed that “we have witnessed the carrying out of a rescue and recovery programme for the world’s developed economies, involving an unprecedented commitment of financial resources and the incurring of fiscal deficits on a scale that has hitherto been unimaginable”.

But, while the developed countries were bailing themselves out, they failed to deliver on the pledge “to make available an additional $850 billion of resources through the IMF and the multilateral development banks to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalization, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover and social support”.

Arthur pointed out that the IMF introduced a new Flexible Credit Line through which the bulk of additional IMF financing was to be channelled. As he said: “It was also especially intended to herald a fundamental change in the procedures for accessing IMF funds and meeting IMF programming tests”.

However, it could not be used by Caribbean countries and the facility into which $500 billion was pledged to support recovery in the developing world was used by countries in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia.

In the Caribbean, the IMF has agreed to two Stand-by Arrangements, one for $1.3 billion with Jamaica, and the other for almost $120 million with Antigua and Barbuda for which all the traditional IMF conditionalities apply.

As Arthur concludes: “It however cannot fairly be said that IMF response has or will assist in any major material way in achieving the grand overarching objectives stated on April 2nd, 2009 of fostering counter-cyclical stimulation, spurring employment creation nor attending to the needs of structural diversification in Caribbean economies”.

The space allowed in this commentary does not permit discussion of Arthur’s analysis of the lack of adequate response by other IFI’s to the Caribbean. But, his statement should be compulsory reading for all.

His conclusion is also extremely important. He said: “Where there is common threat, we must devise and pursue a common response. Should this global crisis engender such a common response to the common threats faced by the societies of the region, it will have served to usher in a better way of doing things in the Caribbean and will help to ensure that our best days are still ahead of us”.

In simple terms, Owen Arthur has made the case for a Caribbean Commission. If it were in existence, and if someone of his calibre – if not he himself – was Commissioner for the Community’s finance and trade negotiations, the region as whole might have got from the IFI’s a reasonable share of the resources it has been denied – largely because it failed to produce a clearly defined plan that could be effectively argued.

July 2, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Jamaica's business is the Caribbean's business

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


The widely publicised bloody clashes over the last few days between law enforcement agencies and armed gangs in Jamaica are as bad for the economic and social well-being of the people of Caribbean countries as they are for Jamaicans.

While the members of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) see themselves as a “Community of Independent Sovereign States”, most of the rest of the world regard them as one area. Only the most knowledgeable make a distinction between them. So, events in Jamaica impact all other CARICOM countries whether they like it or not.

In meaningful terms, therefore, Jamaica’s business is CARICOM’s business. Neither CARICOM governments nor the people of CARICOM can sit back and pretend that events in Jamaica in which criminals defy the authority of the State are not relevant to them. CARICOM countries are tied together and none can deny cross-border relationships in trade, investment and people.

Jamaica is the biggest of the CARICOM countries in population terms and it impresses and influences the world far more than other CARICOM countries. Of course, the impression and influence have been both beneficial and inimical to Jamaica and the wider region.

On the positive side, the vibrant music of Jamaica and its musicians, led by the iconic Bob Marley, have clearly given Jamaica global recognition. So too have its holiday resorts which are playgrounds for tourists from all over Europe and North America. Jamaican agricultural products, such as its Blue Mountain Coffee, and many of its manufactured goods have been able to penetrate foreign markets more deeply than those from other regional countries.

And, CARICOM’s negotiations with large countries and groups of countries would be much weaker and far less effective without the participation of Jamaica. Its relatively large population of close to three million people makes Jamaica a more attractive market than the majority of CARICOM countries which, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago, each number less than a million people. Because of the size of its population, even with the limitations of educational opportunities, Jamaica also has more qualified technical people for bargaining internationally than its partner countries in CARICOM. Therefore, the participation of Jamaican negotiators in CARICOM teams is extremely valuable.

Jamaicans also constitute the largest number of the West Indian Diaspora in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. To the extent that the West Indian Diaspora is a group whose votes are wooed by political parties in these countries, much is owed to Jamaicans for the attention paid to Caribbean concerns.

On the negative side, Jamaica’s internal crime, and organised crime that its gangs have exported to Britain, Canada and the United States have created an unwholesome image for the country and severely damaged it economically. In the process, CARICOM has been weakened economically as well, for an economically weak Jamaica is unable to serve as a dynamo for economic activity and growth throughout the area.

Jamaica’s high crime level has been bad for business and bad for its economy. A 2003 study found that the total costs of crime came to J$12.4 billion which was 3.7% of GDP, and a 2007 UN report projected that if Jamaica could reduce violent crime to Costa Rica’s low level, the economy would grow by 5.4%. In a World Bank survey, 39% of Jamaica’s business managers said they were less likely to expand their businesses because of crime, and 37% reported that crime discourages investment that would have encouraged greater productivity.

Apart from scaring away investment, high crime in Jamaica has also caused many of its professionals and middle-class families to flee the country seeking safer environments abroad. More than 80 per cent of Jamaica’s tertiary educated people have migrated to the world’s industrialized nations.

It doesn’t take much imagination to work out how much more socially and economically developed Jamaica would have been today had it not been plagued by over 30 years of escalating crime and its debilitating consequences.

From time to time, outbursts of violent crime have affected the country’s tourism which contributes about 10 per cent of the country’s GDP. It is only because of expensive and extensive advertising and public relations campaigns in the main tourist markets that Jamaica has managed to keep its tourism arrivals by air fairly stable.

This latest, globally-publicized, bloody confrontation between security forces and criminal gangs protecting a Drugs Don, Christopher “Dudus” Coke, from being served with an order for extradition to the United States and arrested, will damage the tourism industry harshly, and, again, once it is over, Jamaica will be forced to spend large sums repairing its image and assuring tourists of its safety.

Other CARICOM countries will not be immune from the Jamaica disturbances. On the basis that tourists see the Caribbean as one place, other Caribbean destinations will also have to spend more on promoting themselves.

The fact that “Dudus” could be protected by well-armed, criminal gangs who have neither respect for, nor fear of, Jamaica’s security forces or the authority of the State, is a direct consequence of governance gone badly wrong. From the mid-1970s the two main political parties in Jamaica, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the Peoples National Party (PNP) have formed alliances with gangs that have been well-armed and in many cases are involved in the drugs trade. Having taken that step that renders politicians beholden to criminals, the political hierarchy began an inexorable downward spiral to disaster.

In effect, part of the State has been captured by leaders of criminal gangs to whom political parties are obligated. Nothing else but this sense of obligation to “Dudus” Coke can explain why Jamaica’s Prime Minister Bruce Golding, as Leader of the JLP, would have intervened at party level to influence a law enforcement matter between his government and the government of the US.

The Jamaican government now has to assert the authority of the State over “Dudus” and his gang, and it must be done if Jamaica is to be freed from the captivity of criminal gangs.

And, when this particular confrontation is over, Jamaica must start the gruelling process of openly and transparently dismantling all party political connections with gangs, reasserting the supremacy of the State, and weeding out gangs that are the scourge of the society. Any alternative scenario is too terrifying to contemplate but it does include Jamaica being plunged into the status of a failed State.

This is why it behoves the current party political leaders to set to the task of recovering the State from the influence of criminals and establishing broad based institutions empowered by law to oversee public services and political practices. Jamaica will be economically stronger, socially better and politically more stable than it has been for decades and, as a consequence, CARICOM will benefit.

May 28, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Dumped: A blueprint for Caribbean salvation

By Sir Ronald Sanders:

Government representatives of all the countries that now form the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), except the Bahamas and Haiti, were present at a meeting in Montego Bay, Jamaica when “majority opinion was clearly in favour of a Federation”.

They made concrete and visionary decisions and adopted resolutions that they anticipated would help their small countries individually and collectively. The overarching resolution recognized “the desirability of a political federation” in which “each constituent unit retains complete control over all matters except those specifically assigned to the federal government.”

Knowing from experience that any form of deeper integration would need transportation between their countries to move goods and people, the representatives expressed their belief that “the provision of adequate inter-regional and external shipping services and other communication is essential.”

They were wise enough to know that trying to maintain individual markets, individual currencies, as well as bargaining individually in a competitive global market is not practicable. In this connection, they decided that they should appoint a Single Trade Commissioner with “a well qualified staff of assistants” and “adequate funds” to bargain internationally for the region.

They boldly stated, “immediate, direct representation in negotiations affecting overseas trade and commerce is essential to the economic achievement of the countries”.

They also recommended the creation of a Committee “composed of delegates appointed by the Legislatures” of each country to make recommendations on “the assimilation of the fiscal, customs and tariff policy” and “the unification of the currency” of the countries. Not content with that, they also recommended the appointment of a Commission to examine in consultation with the governments of each country “the establishment of a Customs Union”.

And, these Caribbean leaders justified a Customs Union as follows: “the encouragement of inter-regional trade which would naturally be duty-free within the Union; the encouragement of local industries; the establishment of uniformity in tariff rates and customs administration; and the strengthening of the position of the Caribbean territories as far as bargaining power is concerned in relation to international trade agreements.”

They were also mindful that there would be disruption to some countries arising from a Customs Union. Therefore, they were careful to say that a suitable tariff should be prepared “having regard to the fiscal problems of the Governments whose revenue would be affected by the introduction of a Customs Union”.

On the matter of the single currency, they declared themselves “in favour of the early establishment of a uniform currency throughout the Caribbean”, and insisted on recording the view that “this measure is of very great importance to trade and commerce and it would also have advantages in strengthening the currency and the credit of this region”.

Food security was also very much on their minds. Thus, they recommended that “immediate steps be taken for setting-up of a central body of primary producers (representative of all the countries) with a view to accelerating the development of agriculture throughout the area on a sound economic basis”.

A special Committee dealt with the matter of debt and how it could be handled in a Customs Union and a Federation. The Committee held the opinion that the debt position of each country “would have to remain as at present until the comparatively advanced stage of federation is reached” when the major revenues are centralized in a federal exchequer. The Committee envisaged that the Federal government should assume responsibility for the remaining debt less accrued sinking funds.

Quite remarkably, the Committee of all governments also agreed that “the Federal government should be the sole authority for raising loans on the external market, although it would be both feasible and desirable to permit local loans to be raised for approved purposes by individual governments subject to the sanction of the federal finance authorities”.

Unfortunately, this conference of Caribbean government representatives did not take place in 2009. It took place in September 1947. It was attended by VC Bird of Antigua and Barbuda, Grantley Adams of Barbados, Alexander Bustamante of Jamaica, Albert Gomes of Trinidad and Tobago, A M Lewis of St Lucia, J B Renwick of Grenada, S F Bonadie of St Vincent, M H Davis of St Kitts-Nevis, C A Dupigny of Dominica, Dr J B Singh of Guyana and W H Courtenay of Belize. Also attending as a member of the Caribbean Commission was Norman Manley of Jamaica.

“The Conference on the Closer Association of the British West Indian Colonies”, as it was called, laid down the blueprint not only for Caribbean integration and development, but also for strengthening the region’s capacity to bargain in the international community.

In the end personal political ambitions and misplaced nationalism fostered by misinformation hijacked this regional project. A federation was formed, only to fall – not because it would not serve the Caribbean’s people; but because it did not suit some of its more influential politicians.

Thus, a customs union and a common currency were discarded, only to rise again as the Caribbean Single Market and Economy fifty-nine years later. In the meantime, experiments with individual independence and ‘going it alone’ economic policies have done nothing more than emphasize these are impossible dreams.

The present Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM), now involved in negotiations with Canada after the disappointment of an unequal Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union, is a half-sister to the more robust single Trade Commissioner the leaders had in mind in 1947 to negotiate for their one Caribbean state.

As for debt, almost all of the CARICOM countries now have a debt to GDP ratio of well over 100% and their economies are in deep trouble; the notable exception being Trinidad and Tobago which has been saved by its oil and gas resources. The Caribbean people could have been spared this situation had the Federation survived, implementing the rules for incurring debt that the 1947 Conference had envisaged, and implementing the blueprint for development it had laid out.

A single Caribbean state, drawing on the resources of tourism, financial services, agriculture, bauxite, gold, diamonds, oil, gas and the capacity of its tertiary educated people (75% of whom now live abroad) would have been far more viable today. It is time, the Caribbean learns from its own history and stop repeating its mistakes.

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International